Human study PLS-00252

Impact of BPC-157 on Recovery Following Rotator Cuff Repair Surgery

Other design · Not reported participants enrolled

Version 1 · published November 8, 2026 · evidence through November 8, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

Reports of this study

Every publication, registration and abstract describing this one study. Participants are counted once.

Impact of BPC-157 on Recovery Following Rotator Cuff Repair Surgeryregistry entry · NCT07803250 (NOT_YET_RECRUITING, no results posted, planned enrollment 30)

Design and participants

Design: Other design
Population: People undergoing rotator cuff repair surgery for a rotator cuff tear. Age and eligibility criteria are not stated in the record.
Conditions: Rotator Cuff Tear
Planned enrollment (registry): 30
Enrolled: Not reported
Randomized: Not reported
Completed follow-up: Not reported

Intervention and comparator

What each group received. Related peptides, analogs and combinations are never treated as the compound itself.

BPC-157 (intervention) · bpc-157 · BPC-157 listed as a registered intervention · Not reported assigned
Sham (No Treatment) (comparator) · no treatment · Not reported assigned
Placebo (comparator) · placebo · Not reported assigned

What the authors reported

As stated in the sources. This is the authors’ account, not Peptide Library’s assessment.

Adverse events

None reported. That is not evidence of safety, and how safety was monitored isn’t described.

Peptide Library’s assessment

An automated assessment, made by AI separately from the authors’ conclusions and not reviewed by a person. How risk of bias is assessed.

Limitations

other: Registry entry only: the study is not yet recruiting and no results are posted, so no outcome data are available.
small or imprecise: Planned (estimated) enrollment is only 30 participants spread across the listed intervention and comparator groups.
inadequate randomization: The record does not state whether allocation to BPC-157, sham or placebo is randomized or concealed.
inadequate blinding: Masking is not described in the record. A sham/no-treatment group suggests at least one unblinded comparison.
selective reporting: No primary or secondary outcomes are listed in the stored registry fields, so selective reporting cannot be assessed.

No risk-of-bias assessment has been published for this study’s results.

Claims this study informs

Reduces knee pain: not eligible (wrong population) for “Knee pain intensity”
Supports tendon injury recovery: not eligible (insufficient data) for “Function and return to activity”
Improves muscle injury recovery: not eligible (wrong population) for “Time to return to activity”
Improves gastrointestinal conditions: not eligible (wrong population) for “Clinical response or remission”
Is safe for human administration: not eligible (insufficient data) for “Adverse events, serious adverse events and discontinuations”

Where each value comes from

arms: NCT NCT07803250, registry (interventions field) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person)
design: NCT NCT07803250, registry (study_type, phases and interventions fields) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person)
limitations: NCT NCT07803250, registry (status and has_results fields) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person)
participants: NCT NCT07803250, registry (enrollment and enrollment_type fields) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person)
population: NCT NCT07803250, title (study title) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person)
population: NCT NCT07803250, registry (conditions field) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person)

Version 1 · published November 8, 2026 · evidence through November 8, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

These assessments describe published research. Records marked automated were produced by AI under the published methodology and have not been reviewed by a person; they can contain errors. None of this is medical advice, not a statement about any product’s safety for human use, and not a regulatory approval. Peptide Library’s vendor and partner relationships play no part in them (editorial independence).